Arun Kumar Sugandh vs State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Satish K. Agnihotri, J.—With the consent of learned Counsel appearing for the parties, the '' petition is heard finally.

The petitioner, by this petition, seeks a writ in the nature of mandamus and direction to the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner and appoint him on the post of Assistant Professor (Economics).

According to the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, in response to the advertisement dated 9-12-2005 (Annexure P. 1) issued by the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, the petitioner made an application for selection and appointment on the post of Assistant Professor (Economics). Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that though the name of the petitioner did not figure in the main select list, subsequently by letter dated 22-7-2008 the petitioner was informed that his name is in the supplementary list as No. 1. After the said information, no appointment order has been issued till date. Thus, this petition.

It is not the case of the petitioner that some other person(s) who are having lesser qualification and who are juniors to the petitioner, according to the supplementary list, have been appointed. Thus, there is no question of discrimination or arbitrariness.

Be that as it may, it is well settled principle of law that a candidate, being in the select panel/waiting list has no vested right to get appointed to the post in spite of existing vacancies. [See : Ludhiana Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Amrik Singh and Others, ].

In Union of India (UOI) and Others Vs. Kali Dass Batish and Another, , the Supreme Court observed that "mere inclusion of a candidate''s name in the selection/waiting list gave him no right, and if there was no right, there could be no occasion to maintain a writ petition for enforcement of a non-existing right".

The Supreme Court in Rakhi Ray and Others Vs. The High Court of Delhi and Others, , observed as under:

A person whose name appears in the select list does not acquire any indefeasible right of appointment. Empanelment at the best is a condition of eligibility for the purpose of appointment and by itself does not amount to selection or create a vested right to be appointed. The vacancies have to be filled up as per the statutory rules and in conformity with the constitutional mandate. In the instant case, once 13 notified vacancies were filled up, the selection process came to an end, thus there could be no scope of any further appointment.

This Court in Rajesh Kumar Dewangan v. Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors. 2007 (3) M.P.H.T. 22 (CG), held that "the petitioner does not acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed on the post of Assistant pursuant to his selection" and that "no direction can be given to issue appointment letter to the petitioner though he has come out successful in the selection process".

Applying the well settled principles of law to the facts of the case on hand, this petition is meritless and, as such, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

In the result, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.